Eric: Forgot to ask...Lady Gaga's meat dress, yea or nay? Me? I think yea because it offers visual stimulation, curiosity, it invokes conversation, and most importantly, she can feed a hungry pride of lions after the show.

Tracey: Hahahhahahaha. She should have laid down on a grill afterward. What Gaga, no pyrotechnics? Lazy. But really, I mean it was obviously gross but...sort of fascinating.

Eric: So you're giving her a pass on that? Because you thought it looked good or because she continues to offer new sartorial gems that will be discussed endlessly?

Tracey: The latter. She never bores me and that's worth serious points.

Eric: So by that logic, an unboring dress may supersede the fact that it looks terrible or otherwise unfashionable?

As someone who makes her living dissecting red carpet appearances and writing day in and day out about what celebrities are wearing, I'm always all for a look that causes a commotion (except if that look involves my boyfriend and naked pictures of Estelle Getty. Okay yeah, I'll just stop...) and I so appreciate what Lady Gaga has done to shake up the red carpet and knock us out of the Herve Leger-Louboutins uniform lull that so many starlets favor. But I'm curious what you dolls think. When it comes to red carpet dressing, would you rather see a scene-stealer, like this meat dress (or Katy Perry's light-up Met Ball dress, or Bjork's Incredible Hulk homage), or a totally boring-but-well-fitting black dress? Do you agree that some stars should get points just for taking a risk, or do you think that's all just a bunch of publicity mongering? Who, in your opinion, does the best job of walking the fine line between the two? Discuss!